Bauer, in order to prepare the road for the rails. During the construction of this railroad, there were quite a number of deaths. On the twenty-first of June the train actually was in action--but only once. That was only for the inaugural, when Himmler came down there. After that there were eight months of work in which the railroad had to be really constructed.
Q Now what about the duration of confinement in a concentration camp? Were you sent in with a fixed sentence to serve, and were you thereafter released?
A The Gestapo sent the prisoners in protective custody to the concentration camps, and that would mean for a determined term. Part of them were for life terms. There was a staggered scale for the time in the real protective custody camp: for three, six, and nine months--and even a year. And then indefinite or life terms. Most of the time it was up to six months. The Gestapo Main Office; that is, the Gestapo Office which was competent for the prisoner in his home town, approached the camp commander and asked him how the conduct of the prisoner was in the camp. Then the prisoners in many cases were brought to the camp commander for a hearing, if he felt like it. In my own case, I saw in my files later, during the camp time, that actually three requests had been made by the Gestapo office, and that the answer of the camp command on the strength of the hearing which never took place was that I was a very obstructive character and that a release could not be taken into consideration. That was before 1943.
The prisoners who were actually called in for a hearing generally had three questions put to them: First, how long they had been in the camp; what detail they worked in; and what camp punishments they had received.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the second question; we missed it in the translation. How long have you been in camp....
THE INTERPRETER: How long have you been in camp; second, what work detail do you work in; and what punishments have you received in the camp.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
A The camp commanders then answered whatever they wanted to the Gestapo. If a request was made for a release by the Gestapo Main Office, then this request had to be directed to the RSHA in Berlin. The RSHA in Berlin then approached the camp command--and also the Department D of the WVHA. If one of these three elements; that is: Camp, WVHA, or RSHA, itself, did not approve the release, then the prisoner was not released, whatever would be the reason for the refusal of the office. Then a directive was sent back to the Gestapo Main Office that a release could not be taken into consideration (if release could be taken into consideration because all offices agreed for some reason or because intervention had been made, or because he had some connection of a special character, as in some cases bribery had been used.) Or if the so-called pardon action was to be brought into life. That is, for instance, where the so-called anti-socials were released; and to make it look prettier also one or two dozen of the political prisoners. Or, for instance, Mr. Streicher, Gauleiter of Frankonia, almost for every Christmas--Christian Christmas--let twelve or fifteen Communists out of Dachau concentration camp. They were considered improved characters and they were brought to Nurnberg and there they had a special banquet. In these selections a release was approved, and then the prisoner went through the political department of the camp, and he was released. The SS, WVHA received notification that the man had actually been released. For a duration of definite character was only in very few cases adhered to. The release, or the remaining in the camp, as everything else in this system of despotism depended on a dozen or a half-dozen different circumstances. It was especially tragic if the members of the family of the inmate made an intervention with the Gestapo, and they were told on the strength of the report from the camp commanders--or without the report--that the prisoner was very bad, of bad character; that he didn't want to improve, and something of that character. Then again it happened that German mothers wrote to the camp, or women wrote to their husbands that they should conduct themselves better in order to get home Court No. II, Case No. IV.
eventually. And that was considered as one of the bitterest ironies by the prisoners in the camps.
Q You can testify that the WVHA could render a negative judgment on releasing a man from the concentration camp, is that correct? They could say no?
A The SS-WVHA--the Department D, that is--was in a position to give and to withhold his approval for release. Then the prisoner was not released.
Q Now, will you tell us something quite briefly about corruption in the concentration camps?
A It is almost as difficult to describe as the punishments. In all corners and all the ends, in the whole machinery of the system, they belonged to it. I have seldom seen anything as corrupt as most of the SS officers of the "Deadhead" companies, and the SS men of similar character, in the concentration camps as well as outside them. There were very few who were not used to corrupt them or used by them to corrupt themselves. All sorts of luxury articles, money, slave work which was assigned to them for their personal purposes; and very often even some sausage, or some cognac. They had "black treasuries" where they received money from the general profits of the SS for their personal purposes. They accumulated a lot of art treasures which were produced by the inmates, and they got them from occupied territories. Himmler once had a Marmor statue and writing service made which was assessed at 15,000 marks, and which had been produced by the inmates.
A special falkenhof was made for Goering. The female commander of Buchenwald had a riding stable where at least two dozen prisoners perished during the construction, and where she, with a music band, rode on horseback twice a week for twenty minutes. I couldn't tell you where I should start or where I should finish in order to describe the corruption within the SS.
It started from the SS, and it was used by the inmates for their own purposes, and in order to continue to corrupt the SS, and to disrupt it.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Q You mentioned Himmler. Can you testify that this corruption extended high up into the SS?
A Yes, during the trial of Koch, a trial which had been instituted by the SS Tribunal, that was against Koch, in 1943 and from this trial I received quite a bit of information by Dr. Schuler and after that time the corruption from one to another of these groups, which were sometimes incredible in their size and that the enrichment for the SS proceeded went as far as the gold teeth of the inmates. And this occurred every day. The work changed. Sometimes there was one commander and sometimes another. Of course, there were some SS officials which were incorruptible, but as far as we observed, these SS officers were an exception.
Q Did Ding-Schuler, by any chance, ever tell you that efforts were being made to suppress the trial against Koch?
A Yes, I don't only know it from Dr. Ding-Schuler, but also Dr. Hoven who had been implicated in that matter and had clarified that. There was a personal animosity by the higher police and SS leaders, Erprinz Zu Waldeck, Puymont, and the camp commander Koch. The Erbprinz Zu Waldeck tried to liquidate Koch, but before he had received proper proof to the Tribunal and that was the highest judicial authority in this district, but Koch had very good connections and relatives higher up and especially I was told again and again Gruppenfuehrer Pohl was one of his special protectors and Himmler's own interference was made for Koch and eventually Himmler cautioned the procedure in that first trial, but he transferred Koch to another camp of Lublin where at the same time we saw a teletype in the special department of the camp commander and in this teletype it was said that all Jews of Europe should be sent to Koch at Lublin. Koch actually went to Lublin and as we saw later he lead such a wild life in the concentration camp that even the SS could not tolerate it any longer. Of course, he had a black inmate treasury and a black number of inmates. That is his negligence and his lack of interest, because after all he was only interested in himself Court No. II, Case No. IV.
and again and again it happened that inmates were lacking and therefore he simply drafted people from the population and kept them in reserve in order to have them in the roll call when somebody was lacking. And these conditions, of course, were intolerable for the SS and also for the Obergruppenfuehrer continued to work against him at Fulda Werra Kassel and eventually the trial took place against him, but, no success was had in the first trial, but Dr. Wehner, one of the investigators of the SS at Lenz had more success then in this second trial.
MR. MC HENEY: I have no other questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl.
GROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, where did you live in 1933?
A In Vienna.
Q And in 1934?
AAlso in Vienna.
Q In 1938 you were then arrested, that was in March of 1938?
A Yes, and I already mentioned that before.
Q You made a statement here about the conditions of concentration camps in 1933, 1934, up to 1938, and I will ask you now, witness, how do you know all those things. Where did you gain your knowledge during all those five years that you were in Austria?
A I believe that I have always stated that there were inmates in the concentration camp at Buchenwald from 1933 on and they were in protective custody. In other words, about all the details that had been given which happened in the series of concentration camps from '33 to '35, I was in close connection with those comrades of mine.
Q In other words, you know that from hearsay?
A If that is the way you want to put it, yes.
Q Were you ever in the camp of Auschwitz yourself?
A Thank God, no.
Q Nor were you in the camp of Lublin?
A No, I was only at Buchenwald.
Q Were you ever in the outside camp of Dora?
A No.
Q Were you in Estland?
A I said I was only in Buchenwald.
Q All you do know of the conditions which you say were in Dora, S-III, and in the other camps also, was only from hearsay, and on the basis of reports that people gave you?
A Yes, and even on the basis of documents.
Q You stated that eight million people, that total went through the concentration camps. I will ask you now, where did you again that knowledge?
A I already said that to the Tribunal.
Q Do you wish to give me the details. Would you tell the Tribunal again?
A I have stated that there were several sources where I could gain my knowledge. My own experience; experience of my comrades; the documents of the Buchenwald Hospital; my connections with the SS-WVHA, and, also a letter of the SS-WVHA, from the Department D to 16 C.C.S, extending from June to November 1942. In other words, enough sources and basis to get a somewhat clear picture of all of the things which I have stated here before this Tribunal.
Q Do you know, or do you believe that at least these statements are sufficient in order to give you a total of eight million?
A Not only that, but I know that, and I think so, and I know so.
Q You also stated that in Auschwitz alone four to four and one-half million people died. Where did you gain that knowledge?
A From the same sources.
Q Do you know that before this Military Tribunal the matter of the witness, the Kommandant of Auschwitz was examined?
A Yes, I do.
Q And that man stated that for him, or for every other human being, that it was impossible to even give you an approximate figure of the people who died in Auschwitz; that he restricted himself to state the figure from two to two and one-half million? That he furthermore stated that SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann from the RSHA in Berlin could give the exact figures, who is no longer alive?
A I am exactly convinced, as is this Auschwitz Kommandant, that he told enough which could possibly be given as to exact figures of those who were murdered. However, I an convinced that it is possible on the basis of evaluation I did myself to give the minimum figures. The Kommandant of Auschwitz could only speak at the time during which he was Kommandant in Auschwitz.
Q. And you are of the opinion that between 4,000,000 and 4,500,000 people were killed?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. On 12 March 1938 you were arrested, to be exact, by the Gestapo in Vienna?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the reasons for the Gestapo to arrest you immediately after the entry of the German troops into Austria?
A. I have already stated that also.
Q. You testified that you supported active anti-Fascists in the Reich and that became known to the Gestapo. Could you give me the names of those persons who from 1933 to 1938 were helped by you from Austria?
A. It is not very difficult for me to compile a list for you. I shall give you a few names. Dr. Wilhelm Roden, Mathias Gruenwald in Weisbaden, Graf Preising in Munich, and in Vienna a number of immigrants, Klausdorn, for instance, and many, many others also.
Q. You stated furthermore that in the camp Buchenwald you belonged to the small group of inmates who knew all the details about the happenings of the concentration camp. In connection with your position, did you have certain privileges in that camp?
A. The privileges which I received for two years and a half were that I could live in a special block and that I could work there. My liquidation had been postponed until the end of the war, and in this death block which I mentioned only inmates of the same kind were used. We had to do a life-endangering type of work. Most of us worked with living typhus bacteria. Therefore, it was in the interest of the SS that the experts who were working there remain alive. Such exports could not simply be caught anywhere in Europe. They were, let us say, irreplaceable. Therefore, they gave certain privileges in order to keep us alive. These privileges consisted of, Number 1, to get better billets; Number 2, additional food allocations, which had been given by the Food Office in Vienna and put at our disposal; Number 3, we had the possibility to feed ourselves with infected rabbits.
I am sure that the Defense Counsel, if he had been in the same position as we were, would not have eaten rabbits which were infected with parathphus A and B.
Q. As we are speaking of food right now, I shall ask you about the quantity of food that the inmates received per week. In your book you have made certain remarks from which I can deduce the fact that this statement is also based on reports which are absolutely reliable, just as are the rest of your statements to this Tribunal.
A. Whatever I wrote in my book are facts based upon previous experience and documents or statements which were given to me by my comrades.
Q. According to you, the meat allocation in 1941, 1942, and 1943 was 400 grams per week per inmate. That is correct?
A. If that is what it says, apparently.
Q. The fat allocation per week, 200 grams per inmate?
A. The whole list you will read to me is correct, but the remarks which I made in my book with reference to that list are also correct. If I am not mistaken, there are 13 marginal notes in there.
Q. I am also interested now in the weekly food ration which the inmates received with reference to bread. They were approximately 2740 grams?
A. If they received it, yes.
Q. Is it correct that these things were not stated by the WVHA but by the Reich Food Ministry?
A. According to my information, in an agreement between the two offices. The Reich Food Ministry did not have anything to say about the system of the concentration camps. Every detail depended on the SS and nobody else.
Q. The Prosecution in the trials against the Nazi doctors before Tribunal Number I and also in this proceeding here has introduced a document which is entitled "Diary of Department for Typhus and Virus Research Institute of the Waffen SS".
Your Honor, this is Exhibit 219, Document Number 285, which is the second document in Document Book 9 of the Prosecution.
Witness, do you know how the Prosecution got a hold of this document?
A. The Prosecution received that diary through me.
Q. During your examination before Tribunal Number I, this diary was shown to you in the original. In other words, in the same manner in which you turned it over to the Prosecution. I am asking you now, witness, was not the diary which was submitted to you on 6 January 1947, before Tribunal Number 1 written new a few days before the liberation of Buchenwald?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the name Dr. Balachowski?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was Dr. Balachowski?
A. Balachowski was a member of the Institute Pasteur in Paris. He came to Buchenwald, or rather, to Camp Dora in a French transport. We were informed by some of his comrades that he was there and that the possibility existed that he would perish there. I thereupon suggested to Dr. Ding-Schuler, Sturmbannfuehrer Ding-Schuler, to transfer this expert from Dora to Buchenwald in Block Number 5. Dr. Ding-Schuler agreed with my suggestion and, because he needed experts for the production of inoculations, he made an application to the SS, WVHA, and as reason he stated various things. Balachowski was then transferred to Block 5, Buchenwald. From then on he worked together with us until the end of the camp.
On the basis of your statement, I must assume that Dr. Balachowski also knows about the conditions in Block 46 and Block 50.
A. Not so well, not even approximately so well as I do.
Q. Will you stick to your statement about that diary if I tell you that Dr. Balachowski was examined before Tribunal Number 1 and that he there stated under oath that diary which was presented to you was written by you a few days before the arrival of the Americans?
MR. McHANEY: I hardly think that this is a proper question to put on cross examination. Perhaps it might be best if the witness is removed before I state the reasons for my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Just have him take off his earphones.
MR. McHANEY: He understands English, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see -
MR. McHANEY: The reason for my objection runs to the factual basis of the question put. It is a fact that there has been a completely erroneous statement of the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know of any reason to remove the witness while the point is being debated.
DR. SEIDL: The translation of the question did not come through properly.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney is about to make an objection to your question and suggests that before it is argued the witness should be removed from the witness stand and from the court room. Do you see any reason why he should?
DR. SEIDL: I myself do not see any reason why he should be removed.
MR. McHANEY: The objection simply is that Dr. Balachowski as I understand it, has not testified before Case I, at least if he is referring to the Medical Case, and as far as I know has certainly never testified to the effect which he has stated in his question put to this witness. Now, unless it is to be permitted that Defense Counsel state a question which is entirely contrary to the facts, then I must object. I find no factual basis for the question.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I have to correct myself insofar as Mr. McHaney is right, namely, that Dr. Balachowski did not personally testify before Tribunal Number I, but the Prosecution has introduced an affidavit of this witness, to which we, the Defense Counsel, did not object. That affidavit says exactly the same thing I put before this witness now.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are proposing to ask this witness whether a statement made by some one else is true, and that statement is made in writing, you will have to confront this witness with the exact writing and not with your extemporaneous synopsis of it. He is entitled to know exactly what the other witness said before he is asked to affirm it or deny it.
DR. SEIDL: I shall withdraw the question now, as I do not have the affidavit by Balachowski here with me.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you testified that the concentration camp Buchenwald was liberated on the 12th of April, 1945, by the Allied troops. Where were you at on that day?
A I was in Weimar.
Q In other words, you were not in the camp of Buchenwald itself?
A No.
Q How did you get to Weimar, Witness?
A Mr. Defense Counsel has quoted so many things from my book that I take it he also knows that part of my book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't so please answer the question.
A On the 7th of April, 1945, I was nailed into a special box for inoculants in order to get through to the Allied lines as a representative of the camp and to get help, because the Americans were to arrive at Jena or at that time had been stuck at Jena with their panzer divisions, tank corps, and the entire number of 37,000 men were in danger, either to be sent in death transports or to be exterminated. There was no issue out of the camp for no one, but the medical material we had there from the Hygienic Institute in Block 50 was being removed. I succeeded, in agreement with a few comrades, to develop a plan and to put it into practical effect, namely, that I was to be put on a truck by the SS, accompanied by SS troops, who knew nothing of the entire plan, nailed into a wooden box as if I were innoculants against typhus, and thus I would be transported to Weimar. In Weimar I could then carry out my plan within the next three days. Therefore I would return with the American troops coming from the south to the concentration camp Buchenwald.
Q I shall now come back to these medical experiments at Buchenwald that were carried out there. You testified that Dr. Ding, from 1943 onward was chief of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald, is that correct?
A Yes. The time within '43 must be stated more accurately. I tell you the Department for Typhus and Virus Research was later on decided upon by the Hygienic Institute at Berlin, rather than at the time when Ding-Schuler took over those functions practically.
Q When was the Department for Typhus and Virus Research created?
A The department which received that title later on, according to my recollection, was created in November, 1941, within the framework of the Department for Special Tasks of Dr. Ding-Schuler, and that was only for a clinical station there. The plan for the function of the station for the production of inoculants for typhus started in autumn of 1942. The execution itself ran from the end of January, 1943, to the 15th of August, 1943. The common title, Department for Typhus and Virus Research, at Buchenwald, was, according to my recollection, finally decided upon at the end of 1943, at the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, Berlin.
Q You furthermore stated that immediately after the liberation of the camp, all the material which was still there, you had given it ever to the Allied troops, is that right? What material were you speaking about?
A May I say first of all that according to my recollection I did not state that all the material that had been saved had been turned over to the Allied troops by myself, but according to my own recollection I said that we turned the material, or rather we collected the material, to be exact, through the information office of the inmates. I then used that material for the first documented report to the Allied Headquarters there. This was first of all documentary evidence from the hospital, from the political department, from the office of the report clerk, and from the administration. Furthermore there were the files and copies of reports in the inmate library and in the inmate labor statistics.
Q During the proceedings against the doctors before Tribunal No. 1 you testified that a few days before the liberation of the camp all the documents which were in the camp had been burned by the SS leaders. You furthermore testified that Dr. Ding destroyed all the documents of Blocks 46 and 50 which appeared dangerous. Could you remember that?
A I would like to see the original report of my statement before the medical trial and also the whole connection. Of course, I can remember that I testified to that effect.
Q According to your recollection now, it should be possible for you to tell me now if that assertion is correct or not.
A It is quite clear that between the intention to destroy all the documents and the practical carrying out of the plan there was a lapse of time, and there was the possibility of removing certain documents, preserving them, and furthermore that there was material which the SS could not be interested in during those stormy days. Not everything was burned. Had everything been burned then there wouldn't have been the original diary of Block 46 which I myself saved from burning.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I have the verbatim record of the statement of Dr. Biel Balachowski, and I want to read these figures to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you refer to the page number in the transcript of the proceedings before Tribunal I which you are about to read?
DR. SEIDL: This is Document NO 484. It is a document which was set up by the Prosecution itself during the trials against the doctors before Tribunal No. 1. The Prosecution itself submitted this document. To be exact this is Document Book No. 12. Unfortunately, all I have here is the German translation of that affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient. Can you follow this, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: I think so. I suppose he is about to put statements of Balachowski to the witness. Of course, we have put in nothing from Balachowski in this case, but I have no objection to his proceeding.
Q (By Dr. Seidl): Witness, it says the following thing in this statement. I shall quote now. "The notes which were copied into the block diary shortly before the liberation of the camp gave an exact figure of the culture and the various passages of the condition of the tests." What can you say to this statement by Dr. Biel Balachowski?
A The matter is incredibly simple. Who is it that says that there is no difference between the diaries of 46 and 50? Why are they identical?
Q This witness is not mentioning a diary for Block 50, but he says that the statements were copied into the block diary on the basis of the documents which were there, and according to your testimony one must assume that this is a diary of the Department for Typhus and Virus Research.
A No. 1, as I already mentioned before, the Department for Typhus and Virus Research had two blocks. Which block do you think Professor Balachowski is referring to in his statement?
Q I shall submit something else to you now, witness. The No. 29 which was already submitted to you, it contained a ledger description which is entitled, "Carried Out in Block 46, Typhus Experiments."
MR. McHANEY: I think it is quite proper to get this first question cleared up, and I admit I am in a state of confusion. Dr. Seidl has been referring to statements by Balachowski in this affidavit having reference to a diary kept in Block 50. That certainly has nothing to do with the diary which has been offered in evidence here because it is a diary concerning Block 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness wanted to know that very thing.
MR. McHANEY: Well, I think he is entitled to be informed too.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he is entitled to give an answer to his. The question has been asked the witness, what block, or rather the diary of what block was referred to by Dr. Balachowski. Tell him. Look in the affidavit, what does it say?
DR. SEIDL: The affidavit is divided into several sub-departments. The statements already quoted refer to the diary of Block No. 46 for the reason that part of the explanation is entitled "Diffuse Experiments Carried Out in Block Number 46." Therefore, I think it is absolutely impossible that the statements of Dr. Balachowski can refer to a diary which allegedly was carried out for Block No. 50.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, are you using two portions of the affidavit to question this witness from?
DR. SEIDL: It is one and the same thing. It would simplify matters, Your Honor, if I could submit to the witness the document book itself, and he can just go through the pages.
THE PRESIDENT: An excellent idea; excellent.
MR. MCHANEY: It might help if Dr. Seidl would mention the paragraph number in the affidavit upon which his question was based so that the witness can start at that point.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, indicate to the witness what portion of the affidavit you wish him to inspect and testify about.
DR. SEIDL: The witness, first of all, is to read the title over cipher No. 24. I see he has already found it. And then he is to also read cipher No. 29. He will be able to deduct from that that cipher 29 can only refer to the diary of Block No. 46.
THE WITNESS: I am afraid that I have to start explaining everything from the beginning because the Defense counsel has been speaking all the time. I have to start all over again. I have cipher No. 29. I have read it in this translation of the document. The text is the following. The remarks in those documents which were made shortly before the liberation of the camp -- or, rather, introduced into block diary No. 46 -- or, rather, copied into the diary -- give the exact figure of the cultures of various patients, and the development of the experiments. It is absolutely clear that Prof. Balachowski here refers to his copy which he entered into a block diary. I know that Balachowski, together with Prof. Weichs, who also worked in Block No. 50 during the few days while I was in Weimar; in other words, between the 7th and 11th of April, 1945, dealt with the remaining patients in the experimental station No. 46.
I, furthermore, know from him, from the time during which I was together with him after the Liberation, in Paris, that he made notes -- these notes, together with my experiences, which were much greater -- and he adjusted his experience compared with mine. In other words, if he refers here to file memoranda of block 46, and then speaks of the copy into the block diary -- then he means statements that remain in block 46 from which he drew certain information for a block diary which he compiled in block 50, and he made copies and entries into that diary. The block diary which is referred to here -and there was no such title, officially speaking, and of which, if it did exist I must have had knowledge, is in no way identical with the official diary from block 46 as it is introduced to the Tribunal -- or has been introduced to the Tribunal.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q In other words, you stick to your statement that the diary which you submitted to the Allies was the original diary of Dr. DingSchuler?
A Yes, of course I do.
Q You also stick to it if I tell you that the diary which was turned over by you examined by two experts in handwriting, and that they stated that every page of the diary was written or copied one page after the other; in other words, in sequence.
A I read about it in the German newspapers. I did not read, and never did I hear from anybody else, that it had been copied. I have read and heard that the same typewriter was used, and, with the exception of a few cases, that the same typewriter ribbon was used. I know nothing about the copy in all those things. As far as the rest is concerned, this is not decisive at all for me. The decisive fact for me is that I had this diary in my hands several times and, to be exact, IN block 50;